Oakland University Senate

March 3, 1964

Agenda

MEMORANDUM
February 28, 1964

TO: All Members of the Senate

FROM: Donald D. O'Dowd, for the Steering Committee

RE: Agenda for Meeting of March 3, 1964

The next meeting of the Senate will be on Tuesday, March 3, 1964, at 4:00 p.m. in room 126-7 of the Oakland Center.

A. Old Business

1. Recommendations from the Committee on Instruction (Mr. Tomboulian)

a. The Senate approves the 1963-65 University Catalog as a legal document and empowers the Committee on Instruction to make necessary emendations to the catalog in preparing subsequent editions consistent with the Senate's approved policy.

b. The "I" (Incomplete) grade is a temporary grade that may be given only after the 13th week in a course where a student is unable to complete the required work because of severe hardship. An "I" grade does not become official until approved by the Dean of the University. It is not to be considered a way whereby a student may avoid receiving a failing grade in a course. It must be removed by completing the required work before the deadline set by the instructor, but in no case later than the end of the next semester that the student is in residence, or a grade of 0.0 will be recorded. If more than three semesters intervene before the student resumes residence, then the "I" grade becomes an "N" grade.

2. Recommendation from the Faculty Affairs Committee (Mr. Haden)

a. The Faculty Affairs Committee recommends the approval of the Rules of Tenure that constitute the first two pages of the document attached to the agenda of February 24 that is entitled Appointment and Tenure Policies. The Rules of Tenure require the approval of the Board of Trustees before they take effect.

The policies and procedures described in the remaining five pages of the Appointment and Tenure Policies document are to take effect as soon as possible after the distribution of this Senate agenda. They are administrative procedures and practices that have been approved by the Faculty Affairs Committee and will be implemented by the Dean of the University.

3. Recommendation from the Developmental Programs Committee (Mr. Roose)

a. Viewing Oakland University, with its current curriculum or a new curriculum, as an experimental laboratory in which new ideas in higher education can be tested in practice, the Developmental Programs Committee recommends the adoption of the following motion.

(1) Faculty teams shall be encouraged to formulate undergraduate educational programs consistent with the aims of liberal education and utilizing as much or as little of our current curriculum as desirable. Such programs should be conceived to operate within a student-faculty ratio of 20-1 and to involve no more than 200 students, to be recruited from incoming freshmen and/or students currently enrolled.

(2) When a committed team has worked out curricular and administrative details of a plan, it shall first inform the Senate, and, then, with the approval of  the Dean of the University, put the plan into operation. Administrative details should include plans, if needed, for adjusting graduation requirements for students under the plan and guaranteeing student readmission to the standard University curriculum without hardship, if the plan should prove unworkable.

4. Recommendation from the Admissions Committee (Mr. Mobley, Acting Chairman)

a. The Admissions Committee recommends that the following motion be adopted by the Senate.

That Oakland University institute by the fall semester, 1965, one of the nationally recognized entrance testing programs as part of the requirements for admission.

B. New Business

1. Recommendations from the Committee on Instruction (Mr. Tomboulian)

a. The following materials on Major Standing describe a procedure for monitoring the progress of a student in his major program. The Committee on Instruction recommends Senate approval of the sections below numbered 3 and 4. These two sections contain the only two policy changes included in the procedure.

Major Standing

Attention has been called to the fact that a student's performance is carefully watched during his first four semesters and at the time of admission to Major Standing, but from that time until graduation there are no University-wide procedures in effect which check up on student performance in major, minor, elective, and University courses. It is therefore possible that a student could have an over-all 2.0 average and nevertheless be doing unsatisfactory work in his major courses; he would be eligible to graduate from the University, but the department would be unwilling to certify him in his major. The following procedures are suggested as a means of controlling a student's eligibility to achieve and maintain Major Standing in a department:

(1) "A student may be admitted to Major Standing if he has passed with at least a 2.0 average all courses prerequisite to the major." (Senate minutes, April 25, 1962},

(2) Upon admission to Major Standing, a departmental advisor takes responsibility for supervising the student's performance in his major courses.

(3) When a student drops below 2.0 in major courses, the advisor reports him to the department chairman, and the student is placed on departmental probation. The Academic Standing Committee is also notified. [It would be desirable to have this information furnished by CDPC]

(4) If the student is not removed from probation after one further semester's work in major courses, he is liable to be dropped from Major Standing at the discretion of the department chairman.

(5) It is the responsibility of the major advisor and the department chairman to enforce these regulations. All grades are reviewed by the advisor and the departmental chairman (when necessary) at the end or beginning of each semester.

(6) The Registrar must send copies of student grades to the departmental advisor and the chairman at the same time they go to the student.

DDO'D:ird